A new Civilization game has been announced.

[Lorenzo_H]

One of my favorite aspects of Civ 4 is how multiplayer friendly it is. My wife and I regularly play games together and it's immensely easy and fun. There are even 'deathmatch' style maps that are designed for multiplayer and team games. So many options to make the game exactly what you want it to be. Pretty much any style of play you've ever had in any of the previous Civ games can be duplicated in some manner.

I agree that it's not really "new" in any sense, but I think the proper way to look at Civ 4 is that it comes closer to perfecting the game than any other version, especially if you play with the Warlords expansion. If there was one thing I could change about the game, it would be to make the tech tree larger. That said, they've done an excellent job of making sure that the game is balanced. There's nothing that's too overpowered or underpowered. Everything can be countered by something (except possibly Praetorians in the ancient era).

Yeah I enjoy playing my bro. I beat him all the time though...

[TinCow]

Yeah I enjoy playing my bro. I beat him all the time though...

LOL, I can freely say that I am much better than my wife, since she doesn't read these forums. Due to that, we play cooperatively as a team against the AI. We pump up the difficulty because of the team advantages we get.

[screwtype]

If there was one thing I could change about the game, it would be to make the tech tree larger.

Yeah, that's something that disappointed me about Civ4 too. I got used to the tech tree in Civ3 and it seemed to make very good sense and be well paced and so on. Civ4 by contrast, you just seem to rip through the tech tree and there isn't the same variety or sense of achievement or tension as you struggle to get that vital tech as there is in Civ3. Just another feature that made Civ4 a much more bland experience than the previous game for me.

[screwtype]

Well, its all incremental. I have or had Civ 2, CTP and Civ 3, and I would say Civ 3 was certainly a worthwhile upgrade over the earlier two. Strategic resources were good. Diplomacy worked better. So I would guess if you jumped straight from Civ 2 to civ 4 you would feel the same, only more so

There's no getting away from the fact that its basically the same game though. Either you get excited moving little men about the grid and fiddling with a tax rate or you don't.

As a recovered "addict" who knows exactly what Econ21 means I am not in a hurry to get any more Civ, personally. its too much like work.

The main problem with Civ3 for me is that it just becomes too much to manage in the end game. You seem to spend all your time going around queuing up the next building and next unit in each city, or fiddling with city workers to try and fix the little problems that arise with happiness etc etc.

The early to mid game when you are exploring and founding cities is fun, but after a while it all becomes a micromanagement nightmare.

[Lorenzo_H]

LOL, I can freely say that I am much better than my wife, since she doesn't read these forums. Due to that, we play cooperatively as a team against the AI. We pump up the difficulty because of the team advantages we get.

Actually the players who aren't in a team get a bonus anyway ie they have a huge base science rate. Players in a team still have the advantage because of: city upkeep (the less cities you have, the less the upkeep is, and since you are in a team, you don't need quite as many cities as someone who isn't), expansion is faster, and micromanagement is easier.

[English assassin]

The main problem with Civ3 for me is that it just becomes too much to manage in the end game. You seem to spend all your time going around queuing up the next building and next unit in each city, or fiddling with city workers to try and fix the little problems that arise with happiness etc etc.

The early to mid game when you are exploring and founding cities is fun, but after a while it all becomes a micromanagement nightmare.

Agreed, also corruption is tedious. I have never played a game remotely through to the end (unless the end was my defeat)

[screwtype]

Agreed, also corruption is tedious. I have never played a game remotely through to the end (unless the end was my defeat)

LOL, I didn't want to admit it but it's the same for me. I've never managed to finish a Civ3 campaign, it's just too much hard work even when you're in front. At a certain point I usually just start a new campaign because I'm sick of the current one.

And yeah, the corruption feature sucks. In my last campaign I reduced it to a maximum of 50% which made it manageable, but then Civ4 came out and I never got around to finishing that campaign either.

[econ21]

Civ has always suffered from the late-game drag, but Civ4 less so than Civ2. That's partly because OCS is less prevalent so you have fewer cities; and partly because micromanagement of each city is reduced.

The point about the tech tree may be in contradiction to the late-game point. I find techs are discovered so fast in the modern era (about 7 turns per tech even on epic/huge), so the end-game actually goes too quickly for me. There's no point invading anyone or even managing your empire with great care; all that matters is cranking out the spaceship asap. (Maybe I should use other victory conditions, but they don't seem that appealing either.)

The most satisfying period for me in Civ4 is from roughly pikemen to redcoats. You are advanced enough that you can afford war without stalling your economy; and the end is still far away enough that the war, not the victory conditions, loom largest in your mind.

I do like the earlier period of exploration and development too - it is rather like the Imperialism 2 tightrope of managing smooth expansion. But I like a bit of combat too and early combat is just too costly in Civ (at least for a turtler like me - apparently massing 8 axemen and stomping the AI is the height of good strategy on higher difficulties. )

[The Celt]

Meh, I tried Civ III and didn't like it. IV was better, but I'm more prone to playing games like Total War and EU. Civ just feels to old fashioned to me.(Pardon my blasphemy)
I mean, when the heck are they gonna update that god awful soundtrack? In CivIV it still sounds like something from the early 90s! You know we have this thing called Mp3s now, that can contain more detailed music! Cid really needs to fire that composer....

[TinCow]

Meh, I tried Civ III and didn't like it. IV was better, but I'm more prone to playing games like Total War and EU. Civ just feels to old fashioned to me.(Pardon my blasphemy)
I mean, when the heck are they gonna update that god awful soundtrack? In CivIV it still sounds like something from the early 90s! You know we have this thing called Mp3s now, that can contain more detailed music! Cid really needs to fire that composer....

If you go into the settings in Civ IV, you can tell it to play music from a custom folder instead. I find that most games are like that these days.

[Lorenzo_H]

Meh, I tried Civ III and didn't like it. IV was better, but I'm more prone to playing games like Total War and EU. Civ just feels to old fashioned to me.(Pardon my blasphemy)
I mean, when the heck are they gonna update that god awful soundtrack? In CivIV it still sounds like something from the early 90s! You know we have this thing called Mp3s now, that can contain more detailed music! Cid really needs to fire that composer....

I like some of the Civ IV music. The intro screen, for instance "Baba Yetu" and the intro screen for Warlords is some nice War Chant.

But yeah, some of it could do with a toss in the bin.

[edyzmedieval]

I played Civ IV for about 3 hours. Not too addictive to me, because it's like a board game, and technology advances waaay too fast for me.

[screwtype]

I like some of the Civ IV music. The intro screen, for instance "Baba Yetu" and the intro screen for Warlords is some nice War Chant.

Yeah, that Baba Yetu piece is really nice. In fact, one of the few things I liked about Civ4. I actually had to stop and listen to it all the way through several times, I rarely do that with computer game music. In fact, I always play games with the music off

[screwtype]

Civ has always suffered from the late-game drag, but Civ4 less so than Civ2. That's partly because OCS is less prevalent so you have fewer cities; and partly because micromanagement of each city is reduced.

The point about the tech tree may be in contradiction to the late-game point. I find techs are discovered so fast in the modern era (about 7 turns per tech even on epic/huge), so the end-game actually goes too quickly for me. There's no point invading anyone or even managing your empire with great care; all that matters is cranking out the spaceship asap. (Maybe I should use other victory conditions, but they don't seem that appealing either.)

The most satisfying period for me in Civ4 is from roughly pikemen to redcoats. You are advanced enough that you can afford war without stalling your economy; and the end is still far away enough that the war, not the victory conditions, loom largest in your mind.

I agree, I think with Civ4 they went too far in the opposite direction. The way you race through the techs toward the end just feels wrong.

I do like the earlier period of exploration and development too - it is rather like the Imperialism 2 tightrope of managing smooth expansion. But I like a bit of combat too and early combat is just too costly in Civ (at least for a turtler like me - apparently massing 8 axemen and stomping the AI is the height of good strategy on higher difficulties. )

Yes, combat in Civ doesn't work very well at all. I remember the second last campaign I played in Civ3, I started a war in about the bronze age and it lasted over 1000 years! I think one city changed hands in all that time. Pretty silly really.

I had a similar problem with Civ4 too. I was trying to take an enemy city, but it took so long just to get my units in position that in the end I couldn't stand it anymore and just chucked in the whole campaign.

[TinCow]

technology advances waaay too fast for me.

Play on Marathon speed setting. You won't have that problem at all.

[econ21]

I had a similar problem with Civ4 too. I was trying to take an enemy city, but it took so long just to get my units in position that in the end I couldn't stand it anymore and just chucked in the whole campaign.

That's one reason I turtle in Civ. Playing Civ peacefully is slow; playing it to conquer must be agonising.

Defensive wars can be rather fast and furious though. It's not like RTW/M2TW when a silly pitiful stack may attack you. In Civ4, often if the AI attacks you, you can see half a dozen AI stacks suddenly looming out of the fog of war within a few turns. It is pretty impressive when you realise how long the AI must have spent marching across the huge map just to do this to you. I find those kind of situations really intense as my garrisons are pitiful but I usually have the tech and the economy to salvage the situation. What makes it particularly fun is the diplomacy - the AI suffers from war weariness so if you can inflict enough damage, you can sue for peace. But conversely, there is a shark mentality, so if the other AI factions smell blood, they may pitch in. And you can try to persuade others to join the war on your behalf. And...

Drat. Starting to work myself up into wanting another fix. Must stop posting.

[CountArach]

Play on Marathon speed setting. You won't have that problem at all.

Except that all of the technologies are researched by 1400.

[screwtype]

Drat. Starting to work myself up into wanting another fix. Must stop posting.

LOL, all the talk about Civ3 was having a similar effect on me - oh, the fun of grabbing those first few techs, getting to your first level 6 city, finding that iron ore tile, achieving promotion to the Medieval period, scoring your first infantryman! The joy of sailing your little galley around, finding that little batch of islands just off the mainland! That familiar little blooping sound when you reach end of turn!

Bah. Not sure I can resist just one more little peek...

[Ironside]

I agree, I think with Civ4 they went too far in the opposite direction. The way you race through the techs toward the end just feels wrong.

Ever played SMAC? My record is 5 techs/turn (future techs though).

I suspect it has to with your empire-size (and especially the economical side of it) as it's been more or less prevalent in all civ games (sadly I don't remember how much, played them all actually).

Edit: Slightly off-topic, what does the second sentence mean in "Eternity lies ahead of us, and behind. Have you drunk your fill?"

[Pannonian]

Ever played SMAC? My record is 5 techs/turn (future techs though).

I suspect it has to with your empire-size (and especially the economical side of it) as it's been more or less prevalent in all civ games (sadly I don't remember how much, played them all actually).

Magtubes is the key to multiple techs per turn, as it is the key to everything else advanced (the super former is probably the most powerful unit in the game). Tool up your supersized solar panel park, then rehome your crawlers to your science cities (several to enable multiple techs per turn, clustered around your capital to minimise corruption). Boost efficiency to insane levels with Democracy/Green/Knowledge/Cybernetic, and set Research to 100% - the engineers freed by crawling in nutrients from your maximised farmland will be providing the economy. As you can imagine, this is not a viable tactic against human players, as the set-up is far too lengthy and vulnerable, but it is eminently achievable against the AI (read the one city challenges in the Apolyton forums for more pointers). Why anyone would bother is another question altogether.

BTW, have you ever tried the more advanced tactics during the competitive part of the game? Homing invasion forces to a base with a Punishment sphere to allow you to continue running Free Market, etc. My favourite was to use my massive former fleet to landbridge and magtube my conquests, usually neutralising the enemy faction within 2-3 turns. Edit: have you ever done the faction-wide pop-boom?

Edit: Slightly off-topic, what does the second sentence mean in "Eternity lies ahead of us, and behind. Have you drunk your fill?"

Who knows? But I can listen to Deirdre reciting a phonebook and I'd be happy. Edit: Oops, just realised it isn't Deirdre who says that, but Planet. Still, Yang remarking "What do I care about your suffering?" is probably my favourite quote.

[TinCow]

That's one reason I turtle in Civ. Playing Civ peacefully is slow; playing it to conquer must be agonising.

Have you tried going for cultural victories? Those games require you to avoid war at all costs and play the other civs off against each other. It's difficult, but very fun when you succeed.

[screwtype]

Edit: Slightly off-topic, what does the second sentence mean in "Eternity lies ahead of us, and behind. Have you drunk your fill?"

That's a tech quote in SMAC?

I guess it means carpe diem - seize the day.

[Ironside]

That's a tech quote in SMAC?

I guess it means carpe diem - seize the day.

aye, the one for future techs, so you heard that a lot in the end game. SMAC does have exellent quotes though.

[edyzmedieval]

One thing that I like about Civ is that history-making is very funny. Mao Zedong invented Islam.

[ChaosLord]

Good news! There might or might not be another new Civilization game in the works, but there is definitly a Civilization IV expansion in the works. It is called Civ4: Beyond the Sword. Eurogamer Article

There will be 10 fresh civilisations, such as The Netherlands, Portugal and Babylon, each with their own unique style and leaders. Plus we can expect trowels-full of new units, leaders, and buildings to expand on the original game.

New corporations will be introduced, which will spread throughout the land and provide benefits for certain provisions. And you'll now have to watch out for random events, like natural disasters, pleas for help, or demands from your population.

Those of you seeking a diplomatic victory will now be able to do so earlier, choosing from more resolutions and diplomatic options, and more ways to spy on your opponents will be included much earlier on in the game.

The AI has been thoroughly worked over, as have the latter stages of the campaigns, with Firaxis intent on giving you more options as you reach the end of your technology tree. Because of this, the developer will include an advanced start option, which will let you begin playing further down the evolutionary line, allowing you to see the new bits and bobs without pouring your summer into the game.

This new expansion will also integrate community content, adding 12 new scenarios created or inspired by you, the fans.

[doc_bean]

It seems to be called 'beyond the stars' and not 'beyond the sword' a promising title at least.

Too bad Civ expansions cost nearly as much as full games, and i haven't bought warlords (yet ?).

[frogbeastegg]

Official site says "Beyond the Sword."

Sounds a bit meh so far. Adding a lot of stuff to the part of the game I find boring - the post medieval section.

[doc_bean]

Apparently Eurogamer does it wrong and it's indeed 'Beyond the Sword'. I was hoping they'd improve the late game period and perhaps even add a little extra era (hence the title), now it just feels like a bunch of 'stuff'.

O well, I still haven't gotten Galactic Civilizations II, there appears to be a gold edition out now (me wonders if he'll ever encounter it in shops here).

[Rilder]

It'd be nice if the game wouldn't rush you past Classical age (on marathon), I'l just start to finish building my army when medival age hits and all my units are out dated...

[Lorenzo_H]

Looks great to me.